ORDER A junior line man one Sonful Bhagat during the course of employment of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. He died on 29.1.1987. Two of his sons applied far employment on compassionate ground in effect under rule of harness that they be given job consequent upon the death of their father in employment of Bihar State Electricity Board. The applications were made by two sons of late Sonful Bhatat M/s. Ram Ashish Bhagat elder son and Jail Mangal Bhagat the younger son. In so far as the process of elimination was concerned the Bihar State Electricity Board seem to be very quick in rejecting the elder one on the ground that his application was barred as he was over age. But in so far as the application of the younger son was concerned, the Bihar State Electricity Board kept it pending for ten years. Thus, a petition was filed by the elder son Ram Ashish Bhagat in effect seeking the relief from the High Court that a mandamus be issued that he be given employment on compassionate grounds in lieu of the employment which their father had with the Bihar State Electricity Board. The matter was heard by a learned Judge who by his order of 1 July, 1999 accepted the contention of the Bihar State Electricity Board that perhaps the elder son, the petitioner Ram Ashish Bhagat was over age. But the learned Judge gave a direction that the younger son, respondent no.6 in this appeal. Jai Mangal Bhagat be given employment on compassionate grounds. The order of the learned Judge is short. It is thus reproduced: "After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that from Annexure-A there has been some consideration of the case of petitioner. In view of consideration of the age of petitioner his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered, but the case of one Mangal Bhagat may be considered by the Board treating that the application for compassionate appointment has been made in 1988 itself. Such consideration may be made within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Secretary of the Board who is impleaded as respondent no.7 to this writ application. This Court gives liberty to the Petitioners counsel to add Secretary of the Board as respondent no.7. Such consideration may be made within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Secretary of the Board who is impleaded as respondent no.7 to this writ application. This Court gives liberty to the Petitioners counsel to add Secretary of the Board as respondent no.7. This writ petition is thus disposed of." Not satisfied with the order on the petition, the Bihar State Electricity Board had made an issue out of it and desires to challenge it in this present, Letters Patent Appeal. The opening argument of learned counsel was that it was not the business of the learned Judge on the writ petition to have granted the relief of a delayed petition which admittedly had been filed after ten years. This is putting the cart before the horse. The record of the Bihar State Electricity Board is questionable on what exactly it did upon the application. It kept the application of the younger son pending for ten years. Indeed, the issue was very petty. Once the Bihar State Electricity Board rejected the application of one of the sons being over age it was obliged to pass the order on the application of the other who was not over age. What orders the Bihar State Electricity Board could pass on the application it was entirely free to do so but instead it kept the matter pending. It is for this reason that a petition had been filed. The second argument of learned counsel was that the petition was one of Ram Ashish Bhagat and Jai Mangal Bhagat whereas the latter received the relief from the learned Judge and he was a respondent. The contention is on technicality that a respondent cannot be granted relief. Perhaps, learned counsel forgot that he was arguing in the equity jurisdiction of the High Court and this petition in fact is one of common cause between the two brothers. The ends of justice are to be seen. The Court does not appreciate the contention made by learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board that the High Court had acted on a delayed petition. Counsel could not answer the inquiry of the Court why the application of Jai Mangal Bhagat was not acted upon. A delayed case not attended to by the Board and kept in abeyance for ten years. Counsel could not answer the inquiry of the Court why the application of Jai Mangal Bhagat was not acted upon. A delayed case not attended to by the Board and kept in abeyance for ten years. Given an occasion, the Bihar State Electricity Board ought to have been saddled with very heavy costs for not acting upon an application and keeping it pending and bringing futile causes before the High Court. Learned counsel on behalf of the Board has chosen to withdraw the appeal and has given an undertaking that the appointment on compassionate ground to respondent no.6, Jai Mangal Bhagat, will be made effective as from the date of the order of the learned Judge on the writ petition i.e., 1.7.1999. The appeal is permitted to be withdrawn upon the acceptance of the undertaking as above.